Angry Santorum: I never said I’d vote for Obama over Romney!

posted at 6:00 pm on March 23, 2012 by Allahpundit

Twelve minutes from today’s Cavuto. I agree, he never said he’d vote for Obama over Romney. What he said was that “we” the electorate might collectively conclude that there’s not enough difference between them to justify replacing the incumbent, the implication being that that would be a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Right? Read his comments from yesterday again or watch the video; the clear impression I got was “I wouldn’t blame anyone who thought that way,” an impression apparently shared by Santorum supporter Ed Morrissey. There are a lot of ways to hit Mitt for being a squish, first and foremost that America can’t afford one when bold action on entitlements is desperately needed, but anything that legitimizes the idea that the differences between Romney and The One are too “little” to justify a strong preference for one or the other is poisonous to the larger Republican effort. What he said yesterday did that, and his spokesman doubled down on it this morning by calling Romney a “mirror image” of O before adding the perfunctory bit about supporting the nominee. They’re not mirror images; there are hugely compelling reasons to strongly prefer one to the other, as I’d expect any committed pro-lifer who pays attention to Supreme Court vacancies to understand. I don’t mean to begrudge a guy a line of attack when he’s desperate to get traction somehow, but the attack on Romney from the right should never go beyond arguing that America needs a strong conservative to achieve meaningful improvements in policy. If you’re a prominent Republican with a big soapbox and you’re comparing Romney to Obama generally — even in the context of how “we,” not you, might feel — you’re playing with matches. (The only exception I can think of is on the specific issue of “ObamneyCare” because it’s hugely relevant to the primary and, let’s face it, there’s really no way around the mirror-image conclusion. But even in that case, the more likely it is that Romney will be the nominee, the more counterproductive that argument is.)

Interestingly, it’s Gingrich who’s made a bigger deal about this today than Romney. Statement one from Team Newt:

Newt 2012 Campaign Chairman Rep. Bob Walker released the following statement today criticizing Sen. Santorum’s comments about the possibility of an Obama reelection:

“As a former Pennsylvania colleague of Rick Santorum in the Congress, I am stunned by his statement that if he is not the Republican nominee, we might be better off with the reelection of President Obama. An Obama reelection would assure full implementation of Obamacare, a continuation of the assault on American energy production, more economic policies that destroy American jobs and the appointment of more radically leftist judges including perhaps to the Supreme Court. Whatever our differences inside the Republican primaries, no candidate should be suggesting that Barack Obama is a reasonable alternative.”

Republicans must not lose sight of our ultimate goal in 2012: defeating President Obama in November. While we may disagree on which candidate will be the strongest opponent to the President in the general election, we can agree that any of the current Republican candidates would be a better president than Barack Obama.

As chairman of the Republican National Committee, you are in a position to focus our candidates on this goal. I request that you issue a pledge asking all the Republican presidential candidates to support our eventual nominee. It is imperative that Republicans unite once the nomination process is complete in order to defeat President Obama. We cannot afford four more years of his leadership.

Newt’s angle here, I assume, is to paint Santorum as a traitor to the cause so that voters will turn away from Team Sweater Vest in disgust and back to Newt as the designated Not Romney for the eleventh or twelfth time in the race. (I’ve lost count.) Mitt’s angle is not to mention what Santorum said anymore lest he end up repeating the “Romney = Obama” message inadvertently.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

Ah, yes, the coward’s way out — just have the balls & vote for Obama then, because that is exactly what voting 3rd party or not voting equates to.

And those who think Santorum is right, that the guy who founded Bain Capital is the “mirror image” of community organizer Obama obviously do not know the basic difference between capitalism and socialism. I just can’t with you.

Dark Star on March 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Wow. The Mittwits really have no idea how this voting thing works.

Once again, a vote for a third party increases the vote total of the third party while a vote for Obama increases the vote total of Obama. These are not identical.

Let’s see… I can have a guy who gets people fired via regulation, or a guy who gets people fired via vulture capitalism. WHAT A (non-existent) DIFFERENCE!

Folks, the discussion is pretty much moot at this point. It doesn’t much matter what Santorum (or any of us, really) says from here on out.

Unless you are blowing off a little steam and frustration (which would be perfectly normal and understandable), there is little point trying to be persuasive for or against any candidates in a primary race. The race is now Romney/Obama. It has been for a couple of weeks, but I think understanding of that fact is now beginning to seep deeper into the support bases of the other candidates.

It’s been a great race. Now it’s time to prepare for the next one. It’s time to beat Obama.

If a 3rd party is so terrible and impossible then all the more reason for small-gov supporters like me to stop big-gov people from hijacking the Party. I mean, if there are three parties and two of them are big-gov and one small-gov, then that’s one thing, but if there are only two big-gov parties then there is no party to represent people like me.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:07 PM

divide 100% by 3 (without using decimals). Do you get an even number? A third party will rob votes from another party which will mean one party will always get the majority while the other two duke it out for what’s left.

I’ll give you two guesses as to which party would benefit from what you’re proposing. Here’s a hint: it starts with the letter “d.”

divide 100% by 3 (without using decimals). Do you get an even number? A third party will rob votes from another party which will mean one party will always get the majority while the other two duke it out for what’s left.

I’ll give you two guesses as to which party would benefit from what you’re proposing. Here’s a hint: it starts with the letter “d.”

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:13 PM

And if the GOP loses in the short-term, perhaps they’ll think that in the long-term it might be better to stop trying to become Democrats. Either that or they’ll double-down with “Republicans” of the Charlie Crist variety and work towards their own extinction.

Oh, honey, you can spin it anyway you want to help you sleep at night. You’re still a coward though.

Dark Star on March 23, 2012 at 7:15 PM

Yet you would have me vote on the basis of nothing other than fear of Obama. You would have me, not vote for someone, but strictly against someone. Hmmmmmmm… when it comes to cowardice, have you looked in a mirror lately?

And Romney’s campaign staffer never said that the etch-a-sketch would be applied to Romney’s positions on the issues, but that didn’t stop both Santorum and Newt from bringng their etch-a-sketch toys up on stage to bash Romney.

Politics ain’t bean bag, Boys.

I’m sure everybody on every campaign team is completely exhausted by now, so I hope they all get a chance to take a long, well deserved nap after the Louisiana Primary.

So – why are you here? As opposed to Kos, DU or some other “vote-against the GOP” site?
whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:09 PM

tom, you stay right here. You have the same right as anyone else who’s registered to comment here. You say anything you want. It’s still a relatively free land.
Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Setting aside your non-applicable “First Amendment! Free Speech! HELP, I’m being reppressed!1!!1!!!” argument, what logical sense does it make for anyone to be here telling commenters here to vote against the Republican nominee? (I mean, for other than the Mobys?)

This is an unfortunate situation where the President has taken a horrible tragedy, where someone did a heinous act, and that the authorities did not, did another horrible act in not following and prosecuting that to the fullest extent of the law. And then, his, again, politicizing it, this is again not what presidents of the United States do.

The goal is to defeat both of the corrupt parties. If we can’t stop them from destroying America’s future, turning our children into debt-slaves, then I don’t really care which gaggle of corrupt cronies takes over the government to impose their agenda on me.

What you’re arguing is that we give up trying to save the country and decide which flavor of doom we would like, vanilla or chocolate. You seem to have accepted your own doom, perhaps because of you are older and have the most to gain from generational theft, but I am younger, and even if I weren’t I like to think I would do the right thing regardless and vote 3rd party.

Nobody owes their vote to someone else.
tom on March 23, 2012 at 7:05 PM

So – why are you here? As opposed to Kos, DU or some other “vote-against the GOP” site?

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Because I’m a conservative. Which is not necessarily the same thing as a Republican.

I know the argument for voting for any Republican nominee as better than the Democrat. I voted for McCain, and really hoped he would win, even though I knew he stunk on ice and would be regularly rolled by a Democratic Congress for his entire administration.

I voted for Bob Dole. I actually liked him, even though he was pretty squishy and would not have been a particularly good president.

If we get stuck with the thoroughly insipid and shifty Romney, then I’ll weigh the choice. We’re not there yet.

Romney wouldn’t be as bad a president as Obama, but Obama can’t destroy the Republican party.

Also, and I’m not fighting you, I like to be liberal, in the true sense of the word, as opposed to the lefties around here and everywhere, who are very iliberal and non-progressive. They want to shut everybody up…Soros, Media Matters and the other thugs…

..and if Romney gets elected and performs as you suspect he might, then I will be right there beside you at the barricades with the torches and pitchforks.

The War Planner on March 23, 2012 at 7:01 PM

What are you going to do vote for a 3rd party? I thought that was stupid and should never be done. Are you going to vote for the Democrat? Think these things through, we need to save the country before it’s too late. These are dangerous times we live in, we could be embroiled in WWIII in 2016, should we wait until then before we finally balance our budget and start living within our means?

Folks, the discussion is pretty much moot at this point. It doesn’t much matter what Santorum (or any of us, really) says from here on out.

Unless you are blowing off a little steam and frustration (which would be perfectly normal and understandable), there is little point trying to be persuasive for or against any candidates in a primary race. The race is now Romney/Obama. It has been for a couple of weeks, but I think understanding of that fact is now beginning to seep deeper into the support bases of the other candidates.

It’s been a great race. Now it’s time to prepare for the next one. It’s time to beat Obama.

crosspatch on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Still trying to get everyone to surrender to Romney by telling them it’s hopeless, I see.

And if the GOP loses in the short-term, perhaps they’ll think that in the long-term it might be better to stop trying to become Democrats. Either that or they’ll double-down with “Republicans” of the Charlie Crist variety and work towards their own extinction.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:15 PM

How does that ensure the conservative movement comes out ahead? Don’t you think that you would run the risk of marginalizing yourself to obscurity?

No third parties ran in 2010 and conservatives made their voices heard loud and clear.

When Dominos Pizza realized they sucked, did they start another franchise to deal with the problem? No, they rebuilt themselves from within.

Well whaddya know, the man who’s one veggie short of a drink came back. A vote for a third-party goes into the ballot box, just like any other.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:22 PM

For a candidate that is probably not on the ballot in all sates, for a candidate that can’t afford to buy air time, or print space or even an internet ad at this point. A vote for 3rd party is at best a complete waste. At worst it splits the party and helps elect the exact thing that you CLAIM to be against.

Since you have shown yourself to be an obnoxious tool it frees me up to say that anyone advocating for this is either utterly clueless or a lying Moby who wants to split the GOP vote and help elect Obama. Either way, no thanks to you or what you are pimping.

So – why are you here? As opposed to Kos, DU or some other “vote-against the GOP” site?
whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Because I’m a conservative.
tom on March 23, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Trust me – when you’re okay with (and/or look forward to) four more years of Obama running the show, you just may not be nearly quite as “conservative” as you may desperately attempt to rationalize yourself to be.

For a candidate that is probably not on the ballot in all sates, for a candidate that can’t afford to buy air time, or print space or even an internet ad at this point. A vote for 3rd party is at best a complete waste. At worst it splits the party and helps elect the exact thing that you CLAIM to be against.

I said that I’m against someone as bad as Romney, and I’m against someone as bad as Obama. A vote for Romney does not improve matters.

Since you have shown yourself to be an obnoxious tool it frees me up to say that anyone advocating for this is either utterly clueless or a lying Moby who wants to split the GOP vote and help elect Obama. Either way, no thanks to you or what you are pimping.

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:30 PM

I’m happy to see the GOP vote split if it gets the GOP to stop trying to put up the furthest-to-the-left candidate they can get every election cycle. I’m happy to see the GOP vote split if the party can reconsolidate itself after a humiliating loss and return to a question of what is right rather than what is easy.

It sometimes seems to me that you’re right about that, the Republican Party is chock full of cowards that can be lead around like sheep with fear, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think the issue is age. The Republican Party is comprised mainly of older Americans, a lot of them boomers, and they don’t want to give up gravy-train even though they didn’t have enough children to sustain it, but they want the train anyway so they’re just going to spend the money anyway and stick the bill with people who aren’t even born yet.

Futile, perhaps. Cowardly, no. Cowardice is throwing your principles to the wind and voting for someone you despise out of fear of someone else.

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:28 PM

The only ones proposing throwing their principles to the wind here are you and the other third party/won’t vote crowd. The rest of us are determined to defend them the best we can, however weak that attempt may appear to be.

But your vote is all about you and your feelings, not about actually defending the principles you claim to be defending.

It sometimes seems to me that you’re right about that, the Republican Party is chock full of cowards that can be lead around like sheep with fear, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think the issue is age. The Republican Party is comprised mainly of older Americans, a lot of them boomers, and they don’t want to give up gravy-train even though they didn’t have enough children to sustain it, but they want the train anyway so they’re just going to spend the money anyway and stick the bill with people who aren’t even born yet.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Yeah, why follow the lemmings off the cliff when it makes more sens to jump off one by yourself.

except, in both cases, you still jumped off a cliff. Other than dying alone, you really didn’t do anything differently, did you?

If Santorum is coming this unglued and unhinged simply in a Republican Primary, how can he possibly handle the responsibilities of actually being president? Can you imagine the pressure on the man in the Oval Office?

It sometimes seems to me that you’re right about that, the Republican Party is chock full of cowards that can be lead around like sheep with fear, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think the issue is age. The Republican Party is comprised mainly of older Americans, a lot of them boomers, and they don’t want to give up gravy-train even though they didn’t have enough children to sustain it, but they want the train anyway so they’re just going to spend the money anyway and stick the bill with people who aren’t even born yet.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

I think there’s a fair amount of truth to what you say. I wouldn’t be so quick to discount the fear bit, though, but it’s less about the party’s voters and more about the party’s elders. I’m sure you’ve seen numerous articles, either through RealClearPolitics, DailyCaller, or linked to via HotAir about how party elders have wanted Romney because they think it helps them “down ticket.”

The GOP’s party elders are like dogs chasing a car. For them, it’s all a matter of strategy for hanging onto power rather than asking what they’re going to do with it when they get it.

I’m happy to see the GOP vote split if it gets the GOP to stop trying to put up the furthest-to-the-left candidate they can get every election cycle.”

No one stopped anyone from running. The candidates we have are the ones who decided to run. The candidates we have left are the ones who didn’t drop out. When Romney gets the nomination he will have been the last one standing ad the one with the most votes.

I’m happy to see the GOP vote split if the party can reconsolidate itself after a humiliating loss and return to a question of what is right rather than what is easy.

We had a loss the last time and it didn’t get us where you thought it would, did it? Here: YOU DON’T GAIN INFLUENCE BY LOSING ELECTIONS
A really high concept, I know!
If the GOP vote splits that elects Obama. If you are “happy” with that you need to take the “patriot” out of your user name.

The only ones proposing throwing their principles to the wind here are you and the other third party/won’t vote crowd. The rest of us are determined to defend them the best we can, however weak that attempt may appear to be.

But your vote is all about you and your feelings, not about actually defending the principles you claim to be defending.

fadetogray on March 23, 2012 at 7:36 PM

So let’s see… I refuse to vote for someone who called himself a progressive, who has demonstrated through his repeat flip-flops an unquenchable thirst for power, and who has enacted progressive policies as governor of Massachusetts… and that makes me the one who’s throwing principles to the wind? You are aware that there is a difference between “principles” and “convenience”, yes?

And other than giving you a useless outlet for your frustrations, a third party would fix that how?

Pcoop on March 23, 2012 at 7:29 PM

What, are you saying, it doesn’t matter who the president is? That may be true in the past—it doesn’t seem to matter which party is in charge, they both are about the same on the core problems facing this nation like monetary policy, spending and debt—but the idea is to choose a new, fiscally responsible path, not just another corrupt D or R.

No one stopped anyone from running. The candidates we have are the ones who decided to run.

True, but let’s not pretend that there weren’t efforts by both party insiders (politicians, fundraisers, etc) and pundits to try and gloss over Romney’s many, many flaws and discount the efforts of anybody else. The people who run the party weren’t individually making decisions about who to endorse (with a scant few exceptions, e.g. Jindal for Perry), but had coordinated ahead of time to try and make the primaries a coronation rather than a contest solely between the candidates — and they did so on the behalf of a guy who has a liberal record of governance.

We had a loss the last time and it didn’t get us where you thought it would, did it? Here: YOU DON’T GAIN INFLUENCE BY LOSING ELECTIONS

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Actually, you do. Why do you think the right-wing has been pandering to the libertarians incessantly? Because reason.com and other libertarian outfits went so far as not to simply vote third-party, but actually vote for Obama. I’m not going to vote for Obama, but if the GOP crumbles, a party which rests upon a corrupt foundation, I won’t be weeping.

So – why are you here? As opposed to Kos, DU or some other “vote-against the GOP” site?
whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:09 PM

tom, you stay right here. You have the same right as anyone else who’s registered to comment here. You say anything you want. It’s still a relatively free land.
Schadenfreude on March 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Setting aside your non-applicable “First Amendment! Free Speech! HELP, I’m being reppressed!1!!1!!!” argument, what logical sense does it make for anyone to be here telling commenters here to vote against the Republican nominee? (I mean, for other than the Mobys?)

whatcat on March 23, 2012 at 7:18 PM

For the record, I’m not offended by the question you asked. Yes, there are mobys just trying to stir everyone up against voting Republican.

But don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. A lot of people have loyally voted Republican because the Democrat was so bad, and are getting sick of it. Saying, “you’re voting for Obama” is not true, though.

For one thing, it’s not Romney vs. Obama. Right now it’s Obama vs. a Republican to be named later, and the whole debate is who that Republican will be.

Trying to browbeat people into voting for a bad candidate does a lot more damage in the long run to the Republican’s chances. I think Romney is a pretty weak candidate, but you can still make a better case for him than “if you don’t vote for Romney, you’re voting for Obama.”

It sometimes seems to me that you’re right about that, the Republican Party is chock full of cowards that can be lead around like sheep with fear, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think the issue is age. The Republican Party is comprised mainly of older Americans, a lot of them boomers, and they don’t want to give up gravy-train even though they didn’t have enough children to sustain it, but they want the train anyway so they’re just going to spend the money anyway and stick the bill with people who aren’t even born yet.

FloatingRock on March 23, 2012 at 7:34 PM

True but “republican” is a dirty word when I’m around my friends. It’s hard to get young people interested in GOP politics because they’ve been so badly brainwashed by their silver pony tail teachers. The evangelical rhetoric hurts the cause as well.

Hypothetical situation: let’s say a third party candidate runs for president and wins. Then that person faces a house and senate where members of the Democrat and Republican parties outnumber him greatly. This person will have to go to one side or another in order to get any smidgen of what they want to do accomplished or else be rendered as useless as a bottle of viagra in a room full of lesbians, which alone would negate the need for this person to refer to themselves as a third party because the label won’t mean anything.

..I know this will probably draw fire, but we might just be seeing 1980 repeating itself. By that I mean there’s a lot of unaccounted for anger over Obama, his shenanigans, and the slime that oozes from his regime. I feel a tremor in the force just like I did in 1980 (oh, I can just feel all of those ctrl-C’s and ctrl-Vs being clicked on out there as I type) and 7 November might be a more massive repudiation than November 2010 (or 1980).

Back in 1980, a lot of folks — the MSM mainly — had Carter getting re-elected, by the way; at least up until that debate.

So let’s see… I refuse to vote for someone who called himself a progressive, who has demonstrated through his repeat flip-flops an unquenchable thirst for power, and who has enacted progressive policies as governor of Massachusetts… and that makes me the one who’s throwing principles to the wind? You are aware that there is a difference between “principles” and “convenience”, yes?

Stoic Patriot on March 23, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Yes, that is precisely what you are doing when the alternative is a alinskyite, racist anti-American about to bury the country.

I wish we had better than Romney. But the choice is coming down to Romney or Obama. The real choice. Not the choice you want. Not the choice I want. And if we reach that point and Romney is the only one left who can actually stop Obama, failing to stop Obama under those circumstance is a blatant, cowardly betrayal of conservative principles.

He said he would sign the repeal and I believe him. Other than that, I have no defense for Romneycare. IMO, states may do how they please though, but I would rather want to put it to a vote. The people in Mass. overwhelmingly support it from what I understand.

Yes, that is precisely what you are doing when the alternative is a alinskyite, racist anti-American about to bury the country.

I wish we had better than Romney. But the choice is coming down to Romney or Obama. The real choice. Not the choice you want. Not the choice I want. And if we reach that point and Romney is the only one left who can actually stop Obama, failing to stop Obama under those circumstance is a blatant, cowardly betrayal of conservative principles.

fadetogray on March 23, 2012 at 7:48 PM

This is precisely why I find your claim of cowardice laughable. You admit that Romney’s not a choice you want. Great, he’s not a choice I want either. So why the devil would you vote for someone who’s lousy?

To paraphrase Jerry Falwell, “The problem with voting for the lesser of two evils is that you’re still voting for evil.”

Because the alternative is even worse. Not voting for Romney is EXACTLY like voting FOR Obama. It basically give Obama an extra vote. One doesn’t have to so much vote for Romney as they can vote against Obama.

let’s not pretend that there weren’t efforts by both party insiders (politicians, fundraisers, etc) and pundits to try and gloss over Romney’s many, many flaws and discount the efforts of anybody else.

He’s had such an easy time, huh? No one has been censored and there is no cabal of insiders keeping you n the dark. All the info is out there at this point.

The people who run the party….

Stop right there. Who are these people? Name some.

“but had coordinated ahead of time to try and make the primaries a coronation rather than a contest solely between the candidates”

Bull. Prove it.

YOU DON’T GAIN INFLUENCE BY LOSING ELECTIONS

V7_Sport on March 23, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Actually, you do.

No, you do not. Unbelievable. No, you do not gain influence by losing elections.

Because reason.com and other libertarian outfits went so far as not to simply vote third-party, but actually vote for Obama. “

Provide a link that confirms that. If they did it was incredibly stupid.

Okay, hypothetical situation here: Let’s say a third party candidate runs and gets elected president. He now has to work with a house and senate where both Democrats and Republicans outnumber him greatly. He will need to move to one side or the other in order to even accomplish any smidgen of what he wants to do. If not, he’ll be as useless as a bottle of viagra in a house full of lesbians.

It defeats the purpose of a third party. you might as well just stayed home on election day.